Oh my god.
Last night, about eight years after it was made, I saw Titanic for the first time. People used to talk about it, and still do, and when I said, 'I've never seen Titanic' they would look at me in stunned amazement and exclaim, 'You HAVE to see it! It's GREAT!'
After all of the rave reviews (even my brother, who hates romantic movies, loved this one!) I was looking forward to something special. I expected to be crying my eyes out, gasping in amazement, and generally thinking what a superb movie I'd just seen.
I ended up getting bored out of my skull at what was probably the most predictable script and one-dimensional love connection I'd ever seen in a big budget movie.
Look, I am no genius of scriptwriting or anything, but how it is that I was able to mentally anticipate almost all of the lines by each character? I mean, come ON, I was sitting there when Kate was about to jump off the back of the boat and thinking, 'Leo's going to offer to jump in after her' and he did. Then I thought, 'that water's really cold', and that's what he said. And then I thought, 'it's like knives stabbing you all over' and ... duh!!!
Even the action was predictable. I saw the dazed captain walking into the steering room of the sinking ship and when he closed the door I thought, 'the windows will blow out and he'll die... wait, the water's not high enough to do that yet... will you bloody hurry and DIE already!'
And for god's sake, when Leo is in the freezing water and says to Kate, 'winning that ticket was the best thing that has ever happened to me' I mentally groaned, 'it's how I got to meet you'. And DUH if he didn't say that next!
James Cameron didn't need to make half this movie. He could have just showed the first part of each scene and let the audience come up with what was going to happen anyway.
There were only three times when I was surprised by a line or situation in the movie. James Cameron should have stuck with action like Terminator and Aliens. Romance is not his forte. I didn't even like any of the characters enough to want them to live, and the bad guys? I only *just* wanted them to die. You can imagine me waving a tiny, tiny pennant when the evil manservant gets it. Yay.
No wait, it's a testament to Cameron's incredible scriptwriting and directorial skill that I was able to ANTICIPATE the lines of the characters, giving me a sense of OWNERSHIP and FAMILIARITY with the movie. Yeaaaahhh, that's right...
So what was the problem? Had I seen previews of the movie and been subconsciously 'primed' for it? Had I heard about scenes from friends and others which primed me as well? Maybe, but for me to be able to virtually anticipate the next line of everyone was just ghastly.
And I didn't even cry at the end! This is me, who needs tissues at schmaltzy Disney movies, Japanese anime like Fushigi Yuugi, and the Phantom of the Opera movie!
Okay, it wasn't as bad as I'm making it out to be. The movie itself was 'pretty good' as far as a movie goes, but I'd only give it a 2.5-3 out of 5. It was nothing to write home about. So why was it so damn acclaimed? Is the whole world really so freakin' braindead that a movie where the audience can recite the lines WITHOUT having seen it grosses mega-millions???
Well, at least I can now say, "I've seen Titanic". Too bad it was a complete sack of predictable sh*t. And all the people who said it was great? I can now see that I have been living 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers', because the freakin' Pod People came and made them all love Titanic!
Does anyone else feel this way?
~Aaarrrghhh-chivist~
Excellent rant!
I actually...um...cough cough...liked it. I don't know, maybe it's because I hardly ever watch a romantic movie that I'm such a sucker for the one-per-decade I do take in. I'd probably give it about 4 out of 5 stars. Not great, but good. I had to choke back a tear when Decaprio's frozen little hand slid back into the icy water, the water that was stabbing at him like daggers :)
Besides bad movies, the only other type I like are the big dumb summer blockbusters.
I personally hated the movie TITANIC. The characters in it were so one dimensional. Other than an occasional person saying that the water was cold it was difficult to believe that they were in anything other than warm water. The science of how the ship sinks is out of the worst science fiction films of the fifties. And with a big budget movie such as this, you would think that they would pay attention to the fact* that the captain of the Titanic actually survived the disaster and did not go down with the ship like in this movie (and the scene where he is standing in the control room, which is higher than where the water has reach at that point, then is subject to water coming from all directions is completely stupid, but inline with the rest of the film). Now let me tell you how I really feel. (:
*This was a mistake on my part. Captain Smith did go down with the ship.
Post Edited (04-13-05 13:23)
I remember seeing Titanic with my wife and listening to her say (this is paraphrasing):
"That is the great movie of our generation. That's the movie that people will all sit down and watch on Thanksgiving Day every year as a tradition. There won't be a home in the country that doesn't have it on video cassette."
My response, again paraphrasing:
"That was nothing but mega-budget hype. Nobody's going to invest that kind of time in a movie like that on a holiday. It'll break all sorts of box office records and then the next River Phoenix wannabe will come along and draw the girls into seeing another movie fifty times over. I am going to buy you that videocassette for Christmas and I'll bet we never put it in the machine."
Well, eight years later and she has not loaded that damn movie into the VCR yet. It was worth the $29.99 to watch my prediction come true. This movie is the next generation's "E.T." Huge box office, huge craze - lightening in a bottle style - and then it just dropped off the face of the Earth.
And the reason? Like E.T., once you get past the grand emotional manipulations (and both movies have these in spades), there is no ingenius story, no memorable characters, and no inspired performances. Every thrill provided by those movies was a cheap parlor trick -- and cheap parlor tricks only work once.
Yeah I agree with Eirik. It was good for about the one time you see it and that its. Its a one shot movie. Nobody talks about it, its a movie good for the time being with no substance to keep it going to be a classic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t give it, you can't buy it, and you just don't get it!-Aeon Flux
It proved that a studio would spend an ungodly amount of money on and that people would sit through a 3 hour movie if it was entertaining. It was entertaining.
If Titanic hadn't happened movies like LOTR would never have gotten made, at least not the ones that did get made. The studios always had it in their heads that people would not sit in a theater that long. They also worried about the longer format because it cuts down on the number of showings.
When this movie came out, people I knew were going crazy over it. I knew one woman who saw it with her friend over 10 times in the theater. When it came out on tape, she bought it and had a party for her friends to watch it....twice. My wife bought it from Columbia House and we got hammered for about $10 over what you could buy it in the store. Anyway...we sat down to watch it and I had to keep punching myself to stay awake. My wife didn't even like it that much. Guess what? We haven't watched it again. What an over-hyped and boring movie. I will say I was quite thrilled at the end where that little sob died in the water. I hate Leonardo and I was actually picturing him drowning rather than the character.
I haven't seen this since it came out, but I thought the sinking of the ship was really well done. It just wasn't worth sitting through the rest of the crappy movie.
Thought the same thing about Pearl Harbor, come to think of it.
So, if this movie is like E.T., will Cameron re-release it in another 15 years with the guns replaced by walkie-talkies?
When this crap came out, my girlfriend at the time listened to her friends instead of me and insisted that we go see this. So being the moron I was, I took her. We both ended up hating it and I never let her live it down. The only thing I got from that movie was a migraine from all the flashing lights.
I actually liked the scene with the captain. That was about it though. No, it didn't make much sense, but I actually sympathized with his character, whereas all the others I cared nothing about. I laughed out loud (garnering neighbors' glares) when Leo swims back up after the sinking boat pulls him down.
Oh, and I liked Billy Zane, but it's Billy Zane, he's awesome.
I didn't see this one in the theater, but some friends had a party and we watched it. I hated it then; I hate it now. Yes, it's predictable, but what movie isn't these days? I could overlook that. Yes, the dialogue is trite, but, again, how many movies have sharp, true dialogue anymore? What I hate most of all is that it is simply a story of a one night stand. The woman goes on to marry a man who encourages her to pursue her adventurous spirit, provides her with a comfortable, exciting and happy life, and then she ignores all that in order to go and die with Leo on the Titanic. I think what bothers me most is that I would likely be the husband in that story, screwed over after devoting my life to making someone else happy and fulfilled; that's just how I approach relationships (BTW, I'm happily married to a woman who has no desire to return to any past love affairs, so this isn't an autobiographical rant, just a plain old fictional one).
I firmly believe that the success of this movie lies almost entirely with the setting. If this same story had occurred anywhere else, it would not have done half as well at the box office as it did. In general, people have a fascination with the Titanic, so they would go into this movie, knowing disaster looms, expecting to cry, and so project those emotions onto what in reality is a very bland story.
/rant off
The point was she was saved from the stodgy life she would have had with Billy Zane as his trophy wife by Leo, which inspired her to live her life to the fullest.
I really get a giggle out of people ranting over stuff like this. It's a friggin movie, you either like it or don't. Why waste so much emotional energy over something you claim not to care about.?
I didn't see this when it came out either which I credit to not having a girlfriend at the time. Any of my buddies that saw it did so with a girlfriend. But based on a gut feeling I decided that I never wanted to watch it. From time to time it will come up that I haven't seen it and once in a while that surprises people. Usually these are people that have never heard of Evil Dead, The Third Man, or any film not in the top ten during the last ten years. I am motivated by these posts to hold out as long as I can and watch it for a joke eventually. "I'm the king of the world!" No Leo, you are just some dude standing on a cruise ship.
trek_geezer wrote:
> I really get a giggle out of people ranting over stuff like this. It's a friggin movie, you either like it or don't. Why waste so much emotional energy over something you claim not to care about.?
Uhhh...isn't that kind of the point of this board? (:
trek_geezer wrote:
> I really get a giggle out of people ranting over stuff like
> this. It's a friggin movie, you either like it or don't. Why
> waste so much emotional energy over something you claim not to
> care about.?
>
It's not that I "waste so much emotional energy" over this movie; the subject was broached, and I responded. The only reason I have spent any time thinking about this movie is that I teach some college English classes, including introductory literature classes, and the subject of the Titanic, and then sometimes this movie, comes up, as the story is featured in a poem I generally use. As for my rant, that aspect of the movie hit me while I was watching it; it required no real time or effort on my part to contemplate it. Yeah, it's just a movie. An over-hyped, poorly written movie. As a writer, and as a writing teacher, this type of bad plotting just jumps out at me, and the more money paid to the hacks responsible does tend to raise my jealousy hackles a bit.
trek_geezer wrote:
> I really get a giggle out of people ranting over stuff like
> this. It's a friggin movie, you either like it or don't. Why
> waste so much emotional energy over something you claim not to
> care about.?
>
Ow...Trek, that hurt...
I was waiting for the posts about that comment. I've gotten into it with people over this before.
I just can't bring myself to get worked up over a bad movie. I will make fun of them, say they were disappointing, or say that was a lot of hype that didn't deliver, but I'm not going start going to start picking something apart unless it is in a funny way.
I think I got ruined by too many other boards I've tried to be a part of where the trollers would post rants just to get reactions out of people.
I actually didn't think the movie was that bad, in fact it had excellent production values, just the story was not everybody's cup of tea.
"So, if this movie is like E.T., will Cameron re-release it in another 15 years with the guns replaced by walkie-talkies?"
If he thinks there's money in it for him, in a HEARTBEAT.
But we love being children. (:
It seems like a lot of people feel that way about the movie---it's like everyone went temporarily insane back in 1997 then came to and realized what a crappy movie it was. I wasn't immune either, but have never seen the movie a second time.
I think Titanic's relative success is due to the time it came out. As mentioned, there was something going on at the time which made everybody crazy!
I think part was Leo's popularity; I too had many a young lass tell me they had seen it ten times at the cinemas.
Also I think it had good timing; there was alot of hype about Titanic [the real one] at the time, with lots of new underwater footage and the like.
Overall I thought it was a silly film, though since when have I been one to hold silliness against a film? :-P
In terms of plot etc, it wasn't too bad, though predictable of course.
But you have to give it to the people involved in the film; they knew exactly what they were doing. Just think of the amount of money and references it has generated since it first came out?
Yes, it certainly is this generation's E.T, but won't be forgotten easily.
Also, there was a lot of technical things which were pretty good about this film, like the water studio they built specifically for this film, and the use of CGI which were pretty well done [such as the CGI crowds in parts]
Anyways, I wouldn't exactly call it the biggest dissappointment in a long time; it's not as bad as some of the absolute filmmaking tragedies out there at the moment!
Capt. Smith didn't survive the sinking of the Titanic. According to Encyclopedia Titanica:
"He was last seem in the bridge area having given the final order to abandon ship. He appears to have made no attempt to save himself. His body, if recovered, was never identified. "
So it seems, aside from the fact that the ship did sink, they got one other historical fact right. Though, I heard it was Pop-Rocks and Coke that did Capt. Eddy in, not drowning!! It'll probably be explained in the sequel.
Deej wrote:
> It'll probably be explained in the sequel.
>
Well, that or the re-make...
Thank you for pointing that out DJ. I had heard on Paul Harvey several years ago about a ship that sank, which was supposedly captained by the captain of the Titanic. This was several years after the Titanic. Perhaps it was an officer under Smith. Do you know anything about this?
It may have been Lightoller to which he was referring. Lightoller commanded the Falcon, a torpedo-boat-destroyer which sank on the sixth anniversary of the Titanic disaster.
Deej wrote:
>
> So it seems, aside from the fact that the ship did sink, they
> got one other historical fact right.
>
Didn't they also get right the part about Murdock committing suicide?
Also, I heard at the time the movie was out that the sinking in the movie was 'real time' to how long it really took the ship to sink (from the time of striking the iceberg). That alone, imo, gives the historical backdrop kind of a creepy "air" to the movie.
Yeesh....Eirik y'all said it well.
Trek : I think it casued a response like you have with a paper cut. Highly irritating only when some thing rubs it the wrong way.
My response : Ship : Good!
Music : Good!
Acting : Border line.
Lead characters : Ham!
Female leads knockers : Good!
Male lead : Sleep with the fishes, Leo!
Trek: why am I ranting so much about a movie? Well, sometimes I enjoy a good rant. I don't think of it as 'wasting' emotional energy, but rather letting it out in a way that releases a kind of 'pressure'. I just felt really cheated because of all the 'social proof' and subsequent expectations that were not met. I was expecting an emotionally charged sob-fest that would leave me feeling really weepy but good. What I got was three hours of trite, obvious and boring as dried batsh*t movie.
Put it this way: they put Zoolander on TV just a few days ago. I was glued to the screen and laughing my head off all the time. During Titanic I would leave the room and get several glasses of water, and not even bother to pause the DVD.
As far as the movie itself goes, Titanic was entertaining but nothing to write home about, and definitely not worth the hype that went into it. The production values, sets, historical detail and architectural accuracy were huge, as were the stunts and special effects. The soundtrack was magnificent. Too bad about the acting, plot and dialogue.
I have met people who saw it three times in the cinema, and I think I heard of some guy who watched it over a hundred times theatrically. The only movies I have seen twice in the cinema were Jet Li's 'Fist of Legend' (once in its original Hong Kong theatrical release, once in the local Chinatown cinema), and The Mummy (once with a work function, once with non-work friends).
I agree that there was something crazy in the air at the time it was made - Leo was the 'flavour of the month' and the Titanic itself was the subject of a lot of public attention, with books, documentaries and the like. There was even a computer role-playing/espionage game that was made around that time that was historically and architecturally accurate. According to my brother, who is a buff of all things related to the actual Titanic *ship*, the game was far more enjoyable than the movie. I talked to him about the movie just a few days ago and while he loved it when he first saw it, now he just enjoys it for the sets and sinking, rather than the story.
~Archivist~
ulthar wrote:
>
> Didn't they also get right the part about Murdock committing
> suicide?
>
Not sure, ulthar. I remember a stink being made because the film had Murdock shooting passengers, when in fact, he's supposed to have saved many lives. Apparently his home town, in Scotland, was unhappy about that bit in the movie.
I'm sure the filmmakers tried, and mostly succeeded, in being historically correct. But, as Menard and others have pointed out, they made some pretty glaring mistakes. Of course, you have to sacrifice some history for the sake of drama, and I know I couldn't have done a better job.
At my work, there is a major database that everybody has to use to do our jobs. Well, it was just "upgraded" which means they have to pull it back and fix all the stuff they did wrong. A temporary database has been created to help us operate in the meantime. It is called (and I'm not kidding) "TITANIC."
That just can't be a good sign.
Why is it that computer people get paid soooo much to suck sooo bad (at least where I work)?
"Anyways, I wouldn't exactly call it the biggest dissappointment in a long time; it's not as bad as some of the absolute filmmaking tragedies out there at the moment!"
That's true. It always helps to keep movie bashing in some perspective. I for one wasn't technically disappointed in this movie because I really didn't expect anything from it in the first place.
Eirik wrote:
>
> Why is it that computer people get paid soooo much to suck sooo
> bad (at least where I work)?
Knowledge/expertise is relative. You can know a LITTLE more about computers than the 'average' user and seem to know a lot. That does not mean you can make truly useful things happen with them.
Also, some of the admin work you have to do with computers kinda stinks (it's repetitive, tedious, etc), and you sorta have to 'love it' to do it. So, in a way, they might be getting paid to do what no one else really wants to do.
Whether Murdock did or did not commit suicide is just one of the controversies about the sinking. Some people say he did. Some people say he did not.
As for his home town in Scotland being unhappy about the way he was portrayed in the movie, I heard, they were so unhappy, the filmmakers donated a sum of money, I have forgotten the sum, to the town.
I thought this was the remake. There was the American version in 1953, also called "Titanic." The 1953 version won the Oscar for Best Script. While the 1997 version won 11 Oscars, it was not even nominated for script. Which says something about the writing in both films.
Then there was the 1958 British version called "A Night to Remember," which is regarded by some as the most accurate portrayal of events.
And I may have been insane in 1997, but I was not insane enough to like the 1997 versio, when I saw it in 1997.. Even though the story of the "Titanic" was one of my favorite stories. Not only seeing both films above, but also the TV version "S.O.S. Titanic," plus reading and/or buying every book I could on the subject.